GOVIND PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. HARI DUTT SHASTRI
LAWS(SC)-1977-1-36
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on January 28,1977

GOVIND PRASAD CHATURVEDI Appellant
VERSUS
HARI DUTT SHASTRI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GOMATHINAYAGAM PILLAI VS. PALANISWAMI NADAR [FOLLOWED]



Cited Judgements :-

SAMBHUNATH CHAKRAVARTY VS. SUSHAMA SINHA [LAWS(CAL)-1979-7-23] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN BATRA VS. BIMLA DEVI THRU LRS [LAWS(DLH)-2010-7-64] [REFERRED TO]
RAHAT JAN VS. HAFIZ MOHAMMAD USMAN DECEASED [LAWS(ALL)-1983-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
SIND BISCUITS MANUFACTURING COMPANY VS. DELIGHT ENGINEERING WORKS [LAWS(ALL)-1984-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
BABURAO KADU AHER VS. NIMBA NAGOO JADHAV [LAWS(BOM)-1998-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
NALIN VIRJEE SHAH VS. NARAYAN RAMCHANDRA MHATRE [LAWS(BOM)-2002-2-150] [REFERRED TO]
G. PREMJEE TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ABDUL KADER HAJI NOORMOHAMMED [LAWS(BOM)-2021-6-55] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR VS. MANOJ JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-1998-6-1] [REFERRED]
ARUN CHAUHAN VS. GEETA THAKUR [LAWS(HPH)-2014-8-68] [REFERRED TO]
INDIA STEAMSHIP COMPANY VS. BRIJ MOHAN DALMIYA [LAWS(CAL)-1989-6-58] [REFERRED TO]
INDIA CARBON LIMITED VS. GANESH PRASAD SINGH [LAWS(CAL)-2011-9-150] [REFERRED TO]
PADMAVATHI VS. E V SUBRAHMANYAM [LAWS(APH)-2005-8-149] [REFERRED TO]
INTI VEERA VENI VS. MAHADASA VARA LAKSHMI [LAWS(APH)-2004-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN SHARMA VS. DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA [LAWS(ALL)-2013-9-72] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL SHARMA VS. MAHESH DASS [LAWS(DLH)-2012-11-165] [REFERRED TO]
GURUVACHAN SINGH VS. MANJIT SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-1999-11-34] [REFERRED TO]
KALEESWARA MILLS LIMITED COIMBATORE VS. LAKSHMI STEELS [LAWS(MAD)-2006-5-27] [REFERRED TO]
P.S.MANI VS. S.M.A. JALEEL [LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-386] [REFERRED TO]
GUNVANTLAL RATANCHAND VS. RAMESHBHAI P PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2000-9-92] [REFERRED TO]
SITA DEVI VS. CHANDRA SINGH [LAWS(CAL)-1996-8-33] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP KUMAR SARKAR VS. SK. ABDUL MALEQUE [LAWS(CAL)-1990-7-34] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NIHORE VS. AJAYAB LAL [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-345] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NIHORE VS. AJAYAB LAL [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-345] [REFERRED TO]
VEENA AGARWAL VS. UNJHA AYURVEDIC PHARMACY AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-197] [REFERRED TO]
SYED QUADRI VS. SYED MUJEEBUDDIN [LAWS(APH)-2009-7-82] [REFERRED TO]
E S RAJAN VS. R MOHAN [LAWS(KAR)-1994-12-21] [FOLLOWED ,FOLL.; 3.]
MATHURABAI VS. AMRESH [LAWS(BOM)-2023-4-142] [REFERRED TO]
ASHISH GUPTA VS. MONIKA DEVI KHETAN [LAWS(CHH)-2022-8-38] [REFERRED TO]
MAN KAUR VS. HARTAR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1999-10-153] [REFERRED TO]
SYED SHAFIULLAH VS. RAFIQ MAHMOOD [LAWS(MAD)-1990-6-47] [REFERRED TO]
JAMBAGALAKSHMI KRISHNAN VS. P C MARTIN [LAWS(MAD)-1994-4-62] [REFERRED TO]
HIMAYAM ENGINEERS AND BUILDERS VS. S RAVICHANDRAM [LAWS(MAD)-2012-3-279] [REFERRED]
GURUKRIPA SHASKIYA KARMACHARI SAHAKARI NIRMAM SANSTHA VS. RATANLAL S O SHEDMAL CHOMWAL [LAWS(BOM)-1988-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
BALAK GLASS EMPORIUM VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD [LAWS(KER)-1993-7-42] [REFERRED TO]
N SREENIVASA VS. KUTTUKARAN MACHINE TOOLS LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2007-2-48] [REFERRED TO]
HARIKISHAN UDAISINGH VS. JASWANT SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-1991-10-10] [REFERRED TO]
V INDIRANI VS. P R BALAKRISHNAN [LAWS(MAD)-2018-8-355] [REFERRED TO]
THIRUGNANASAMBANDAM VS. KANNAN [LAWS(MAD)-2018-9-596] [REFERRED TO]
BABY @ VARGHESE VS. GOPAKUMAR [LAWS(KER)-2013-11-102] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDER KATHURIA VS. UMED SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2006-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
NANAK BUILDERS AND INVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. VINOD KUMAR ALAG [LAWS(DLH)-1990-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED ABDUL AZEEM AND ANOTHER VS. M/S. SOUTH INDIA PRIME TANNERY PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, H.ABDUL LATEEF [LAWS(APH)-2016-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
VED PRAKASH GUPTA VS. SHISHU PAL SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-1984-5-23] [REFERRED TO]
RABINDRA KUMAR PAUL VS. SATYENDRA KUMAR MOOKHERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2005-7-45] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD BHAURAOJI MAHAJAN VS. RAJENDRA KISNAJI MAHAJAN [LAWS(BOM)-2024-6-153] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY MAHESHWARI S/O LATE SATYANARAYAN MAHESHWARI VS. PUNARAM SAHU S/O LATE MEHATAR SAHU [LAWS(CHH)-2017-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY THADANI VS. ITWARI [LAWS(CHH)-2017-8-128] [REFERRED TO]
PADAM CHAND KOTHARI AND ORS. VS. KRISHNA DEVI AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-2-199] [REFERRED TO]
RATHNAVATHI VS. KAVITA GANASHAMDAS [LAWS(SC)-2014-10-37] [REFERRED TO]
SARADAMANI KANDAPPAN VS. S RAJALAKSHMI [LAWS(SC)-2011-7-40] [REFERRED TO]
S K M MOHAMMED AMANULLAH VS. T C S RAMASANGU PANDIAN [LAWS(MAD)-1993-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
CHAND RANI VS. KAMAL RANI [LAWS(SC)-1992-12-38] [RELIED ON]
ASHISH GUPTA VS. KSHAMA DEVI KHETAN [LAWS(CHH)-2022-8-22] [REFERRED TO]
SANGEETA AGRAWAL VS. SANTOSH BHIMNANI [LAWS(CHH)-2024-4-36] [REFERRED TO]
YOGEN RATHOD S/O NARAYAN DHARAM RATHOD VS. PADMA BEN BHANUSHALI WIFE OF KANJI BHAI BHANUSHALI [LAWS(CHH)-2019-2-129] [REFERRED TO]
AVDEL TOOLS AND SERVICES VS. TRUFIT FASTENERS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2008-10-73] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAL KUMAR NEMICHAND KAKAD VS. SHANKAR MAHADEO KUBDE [LAWS(BOM)-2008-1-82] [REFERRED TO]
PRABIR DAS VS. KINU RAM MONDAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
BEEMANENI MAHALAKSHMI VS. GANGUMALLA APPARAO [LAWS(APH)-2007-8-73] [REFERRED TO]
P VIJAYA LAKSHMI VS. B BALAIAH [LAWS(APH)-2011-2-92] [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHIK TALUKDAR VS. SUDHIR CHANDRA DAS [LAWS(CAL)-2012-12-48] [REFERRED TO]
SURYADEVARA SATYANARAYANA VS. HIRACHAND [LAWS(APH)-2002-12-138] [REFERRED TO]
M/S DARVESH SAHKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD THROUGH SECRETARY VS. M/S DOCTORS SAHKARI GRAH IRMAN SAMITI LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-691] [REFERRED TO]
KANHAYALAL HUKUMATRAI BANAWANI VS. KESHAV SHANKAR RANADE [LAWS(KAR)-2002-2-46] [REFERRED TO]
MANGI LAL VS. MUNICIPAL BOARD, BALOTRA [LAWS(RAJ)-1991-4-85] [REFERRED]
BHAGWAN SINGH VS. TEJA SINGH ALIAS TEJA RAM [LAWS(P&H)-1994-1-87] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI AMMA KAMALAMMA VS. AYYAPPAN KUNJOONJU [LAWS(KER)-2003-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
R. ARAVINDHAN VS. K.R.S. JANAKIRAMAN (A.K.A.) AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-7-335] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN CLEANENERGY LIMITED VS. MAIF INVESTMENTS INDIA 2 PTE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2022-1-240] [REFERRED TO]
RANJITHAM AMMAL VS. MARAGATHAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-1998-11-165] [REFERRED TO]
K. NANJAPPAN AND ANOTHER VS. C. MANICKKAM AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MAD)-1996-11-87] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH RARAAKRISHNA MAHALE VS. SHANTIBAI KOM RAMAKANT [LAWS(KAR)-1997-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
SWARNAM RAMACHANDRAN VS. ARAVACODE CHAKUNGAL JAYAPALAN [LAWS(BOM)-2000-6-91] [REFERRED TO]
SHRUTI VS. BALDEV SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-5-130] [REFERRED TO]
MEENA BIBI ALIAS ANWARI BEGUM VS. HILDA GLADY SYLUS [LAWS(CAL)-2004-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
BABULAL HARCHAND BELDAR VS. SITARAM KATHU BORSE (DHOBI) [LAWS(BOM)-2016-6-61] [REFERRED TO]
YUVRANI HANSA DEVI VS. ZAFAR FAROOQ VOHRA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-8-37] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ ANANTRAI BHUWA VS. RAMKUMAR SHIVCHANDRAY AND SONS [LAWS(BOM)-2010-5-52] [REFERRED TO]
INTI VEERA VENI VS. MAHADASA VARA LAKSHMI [LAWS(APH)-2004-11-13] [REFERRED TO]
SRIDHAR NAGARAJAN PROPRIETOR SHREE VELAN PROPERTIES ALWARPET VS. INDIABULLS REAL ESTATE LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2022-11-330] [REFERRED TO]
Parmanand Soni VS. Radhakrishna Dharmartha Private Trust [LAWS(MPH)-2006-12-47] [REFERRED TO]
CHINNAKANNU NAIDU VS. CHINNAPPAN [LAWS(MAD)-2006-2-349] [REFERRED TO]
D. NARAYANA SURVE VS. PAPPU AMMAL [LAWS(KER)-1983-1-34] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ SINGH VS. NATHI BAI [LAWS(MPH)-1989-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAJI S O VENKATESH SANE VS. SAROJ SCREENS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-1988-9-33] [REFERRED TO]
K A KUMARESAN VS. K S NANJUNDAN [LAWS(MAD)-2018-3-602] [REFERRED TO]
D SANGUPATHI VS. D SURIYAN [LAWS(MAD)-2017-6-188] [REFERRED TO]
S SAMBANDAM VS. P DAIVASIGAMANI [LAWS(MAD)-2010-6-125] [REFERRED TO]
R N BAKSHI VS. VARUN KUMAR DATT [LAWS(DLH)-2000-9-129] [REFERRED]
TAVELLEN AMARJIT SINGH VS. GENERAL MARKETING AND MANUGFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1984-6-11] [REFERRED TO]
MALINI V PARAB ALIAS PRABHU VS. PRAFULLAKUMAR R DESHPANDE [LAWS(BOM)-2008-6-184] [REFERRED TO]
DUDAKA SAROJINAMMA VS. VANNEPENTA RAMANAMMA [LAWS(APH)-2023-7-30] [REFERRED TO]
R.K.B.K. FISCAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS. ISHWAR DAYAL KANSAL [LAWS(DLH)-2014-4-25] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. BRIJ MOHAN TAPADIA [LAWS(ALL)-2018-8-288] [REFERRED TO]
MEENA RAJPOOT VS. RAM BHAROSE KATIYAR AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-264] [REFERRED TO]
A K LAKSHMIPATHY VS. RAI SAHEB PANNALAL HIRALAL LAHOTI CHARITABLE TRUST [LAWS(APH)-2005-2-89] [REFERRED TO]
KOLLI SATYANARAYANA VS. VALLURIPALLI KESAVA RAO CHOWDARY [LAWS(APH)-2008-10-25] [REFERRED TO]
SAHIDA KHATOON BIBI VS. DEBILAL SHAW [LAWS(CAL)-2004-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
PHOOL SINGH SAHU VS. PREETAM DEWANGAN [LAWS(CHH)-2023-7-63] [REFERRED TO]
SURJEET SINGH SALUJA VS. GULAM RASOOL [LAWS(CHH)-2021-3-78] [REFERRED TO]
PRAGATI EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE SOCIETY VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(DLH)-2008-4-68] [REFERRED TO]
PANDURANG S/O JAGANNATH KALE VS. DEOMAHARAJ GURU VASUDEO MAHARAJ [LAWS(BOM)-2022-8-96] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH KUMAR VS. RAM SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2012-1-42] [REFERRED TO]
MUSHIR MOHAMMAD KHAN VS. SAJEDA BANO [LAWS(SC)-2000-3-193] [REFERRED 1977 2 SCR 877 =]
SHEIKH FARJAN MIAN VS. TEJU SAHU [LAWS(PAT)-1998-4-58] [REFERRED TO]
SITA RAM PRASAD VS. JAYAM [LAWS(PAT)-1997-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
GAJJALA RAMESH VS. G.VENKATESH [LAWS(TLNG)-2024-6-22] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKARI PANDIYAN VS. RAMACHANDRA MURTHY [LAWS(KAR)-2024-1-170] [REFERRED TO]
M. Bhujangaveni and others VS. C. Sarasa K.S. Reddy and others [LAWS(KAR)-2012-8-467] [REFERRED TO]
IMARTI BAI & OTHERS VS. PREM BAI & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2016-5-149] [REFERRED]
HIMMATLAL AND OTHERS VS. RAJRATAN CONCEPT AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-24] [REFERRED TO]
SHAFIULLA VS. KRISHNAPPA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-9-371] [REFERRED TO]
KANHAIYA LAL VS. JHAMAT MAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1988-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
UMANARAYAN THAKUR PRASAD AWATHI VS. SANT KUMAR RADHELAL ARYA [LAWS(MPH)-2013-4-44] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKUNTLA DEVI VS. MOHANLAL AMRIT RAJ JAIN MARKET PALI [LAWS(RAJ)-1994-5-23] [RELIED ON]
VISWANATHAN VS. R LAKSHMI AMMAL DEED [LAWS(MAD)-1993-3-30] [REFERRED TO]
N SARASWATHI AMMAL VS. JAYARAM RAO [LAWS(MAD)-1998-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
RANGANATHA GOUNDER VS. SAHADEVA GOUNDER [LAWS(MAD)-2004-8-113] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMABAI VS. RAMKISAN [LAWS(BOM)-2007-12-76] [REFERRED TO]
VOLITION INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MADHURI JITENDRA MASHROO [LAWS(BOM)-2003-2-62] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN BATRA VS. BIMAL DEVI THRU [LAWS(DLH)-2010-7-422] [REFERRED TO]
C NAZEER AHMED VS. S JAHAN ARA [LAWS(KAR)-2000-7-47] [REFERRED TO]
KEHAR SINGH VS. PREM SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2012-10-34] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL ISHWARLAL SHIVRAM VS. RAJPUT ADAJI MEGHAJI HEIRS [LAWS(GJH)-2011-8-176] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA BAHADUR LAL SHRIVASTAVA VS. SUNIL KUMAR ARORA [LAWS(CHH)-2023-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL JOHARI VS. ANUP DIWAN [LAWS(DLH)-2012-7-133] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH KUMAR JAIN VS. AJAY PAL SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2022-10-60] [REFERRED TO]
BASF INDIA LTD VS. LANDCOM PROPERTIES PVT LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2010-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
E BHAGWAN DAS VS. DILIP KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-1998-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
T JAGANNADHAM DIED PER L R VS. A RADHAKRISHNA [LAWS(APH)-1997-5-14] [FOLLOWED . (PARA 3) 2.]
NARAYANASWAMY L VS. B BIJARAJ [LAWS(KAR)-1991-2-6] [FOLLOWED ON]
GAIL INDIA LTD VS. PARAMOUNT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2010-4-439] [REFERRED]
MOTILAL DAYALANI VS. ASHOK KUMAR GUHA [LAWS(CHH)-2022-9-95] [REFERRED TO]
SHARADA NANASAHEB PATIL VS. APPASO JIVAPPA CHOUGULE [LAWS(BOM)-2019-9-190] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK GARG VS. Y.C KURELE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-86] [REFERRED TO]
DARVESH SAHKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. VS. DOCTORS SAHKARI GRAH IRMAN SAMITI LTD. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-680] [REFERRED TO]
SYED M M RIZVI VS. SUBHASH SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-169] [REFERRED TO]
SYED M M RIZVI VS. SUBHASH SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-169] [REFERRED TO]
S SAMBANDAM VS. C PUSHPARANI [LAWS(MAD)-2010-6-134] [REFERRED TO]
INDIRA KAUR VS. SHEO LAL KAPOOR [LAWS(SC)-1988-3-40] [FOLLOWED IT MAY BE THAT WHERE RECIPROCAL PROMISE WAS MADE BY WAY OF A 'CONCESSION',THE COMPLIANCE WI]
SARASWATHI AMMAL VS. DILLI REDDIYAR (DIED) [LAWS(MAD)-2018-3-453] [REFERRED TO]
K JAYAKUMAR VS. ROBERT [LAWS(MAD)-2002-3-79] [REFERRED TO]
DARSHAN SINGH VS. SADH RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2024-1-102] [REFERRED TO]
RAJSHREE TEXTILES AND ORS VS. SARASWATHI DEVI AND ANR [LAWS(MAD)-2012-3-482] [REFERRED]
DURAISINGAM VS. S.R. JAGANNATHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-8-123] [REFERRED TO]
RASAMOY NAMASUDRA VS. PRANESH CHANDA [LAWS(GAU)-2014-5-39] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA KANT GUPTA VS. KRISHNA MANOHAR BHATWARA [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-5-25] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

P. S. Kailasam, J. - (1.)This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court on a certificate dismissing the suit for specific performance of a contract of sale dated 24th March, 1964.
(2.)The facts of the case are briefly as follows:- The suit property was owned by one Shri Aditya Narain and the plaintiff/appellant became a tenant of the suit property under Aditya Narain in the year 1942. On 2nd January, 1961 the respondents, the two defendants in the suit purchased the suit property for Rs. 19,000 from Aditya Narain and the appellant became tenant of the respondents. Soon after the purchase of the property by the respondents they sought to evict the appellant by filing a petition under Section 3 of the U. P. Rent and Eviction Act. The appellant resisted and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the petition holding that the respondents requirement of the premises was not genuine. On the mediation of Sri Chand Doneria, the parties entered into the suit agreement on 24th March, 1964. In pursuance of the agreement the appellant handed over Rs. 4,000 as earnest money to the respondents. The terms of the agreement will be set out in due course but suffice it at this stage to state that it provided that the appellant should get the sale deed executed within two months i.e. upon 24th May, 1964 and in case the appellant did not get the sale registered within two months the earnest money of Rs. 4,000 shall stand forfeited. From the 5th May, 1964 letters and telegrams were exchanged between the parties but the sale deed was not executed on or before the 24th or on the 25th May as the parties had agreed. The appellant filed a suit, Civil Suit No. 122 of 1964, in the court of Civil Judge, Agra, on 2nd September, 1964 alleging that the appellant has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and he did all that he was bound to do under the agreement but the respondents failed to execute the sale deed as agreed and therefore committed breach of the contract. The plaintiff prayed for a decree of specific performance of the contract of sale dated 24th March, 1964 against the respondents and for direction to the respondents to execute the sale deed of the property and get it registered and in default the sale deed may be executed by the court according to law. The respondents filed a written statement denying the various allegations made in the plaint and pleaded that the appellant did not perform his part of the contract within the stipulated time and the contract thereafter did not subsist and therefore the suit was misconceived. On these pleadings the trial court framed five issues of which it is relevant to note only two which are issues 1 and 3. They are as under:- Issue No. 1. "Whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as alleged in the plaint - Issue No. 3. "Whether the contract did not subsist on the date the suit was filed - The trial Court found that it was proved beyond a shadow of any doubt that the appellant was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the respondents were not at all anxious to execute the sale deed in his favour and that the respondents were guilty of breach of contract. On issue No. 3 it found that even though the time for getting the sale deed executed expired after 24th May, 1964 the appellant would not be disentitled to the relief of specific performance of the contract for sale on the ground of delay as the respondents themselves were responsible for it. The respondents preferred an appeal to the Allahabad High Court and a Bench of the Court on the arguments set out two point for determination in the appeal. They are (1) whether the appellants or the respondents committed the breach of contract entered into between the parties on 24th March, 1964 and (2) whether the time was of the essence of the contract. If not, its effect. The High Court found that the respondents were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract in terms of the agreement dated 24th March, 1964 and it was the appellant who committed the breach of the contract by not getting the sale deed executed by 25th May, 1964 in terms of the agreement dated 24th March, 1964. The High Court on the issue as to whether time was of the essence of the contract held that in the circumstances of the case and in view of the conduct of the parties of serving on each other notices, counter notices and telegrams they expressed their intention to treat time as of the essence of the contract and that once the time is held to be the essence of the contract the appellant's suit for specific performance must fail. The High Court also held that even if time is not held to be of the essence of the contract it was of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to a decree for specific performance as he had failed to prove that he was ready to perform his part of the contract.
(3.)The appellant applied for a certificate and the High Court by its order dated 22nd February, 1971 granted the certificate under clause (a) of Article 133 (1) of the Constitution.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.